Have the online patient information materials on biceps tendon disorders adequate, quality and readability?

Yıl 2023, , 46 - 52, 21.06.2023

Muhammet Zeki Gültekin , Yaşar Mahsut Dinçel , Fatih Doğar , Serdar Arslan

https://doi.org/10.30565/medalanya.1198923

Öz

Aim: The study aimed to analyze the quality, adequacy and readability of websites created for patients with shoulder complaints associated with biceps tendon disorders.

Methods: The terms 'shoulder injury', 'biceps tendinitis' and 'biceps tendon rupture' were searched in the most used search engines in United States (Google, Yahoo, and Bing). One hundred forty seven websites designed to inform patients were included in the study. The quality, popularity, adequacy and reliability were meausured.

Results: Flesch reading ease scores of websites with content creation by health professionals were significantly lower than those without; in contrast, Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL) and Koleman-Liau index scores were significantly higher (p<0.05). Global Quality Score and originality scores were greater in website created by health professionals. In addition, the percentage of websites with reference citations and addressing the importance, symptoms, treatment, signs and mechanism of the disease was significantly higher in websites with content creation by health professionals than in those without (p<0.05). The Gunning Fog, FKGL, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, Automated readability index and Linear write formula scores were lower for websites with the HON code than those without the HON code. Also orginality score and Alexa Popularity Rank (APR) scores were lower in websites with HONcode than without HON code (p<0.05).

Conclusion: Websites with HON code and prepared by healthcare professionals can provide sufficient and quality information to patients with biceps tendon disorders. The web content available for biceps tendon disorders is above the recommended reading level. Health professionals should be encouraged to increase the readability of the content.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Health literacy, musculoskeletal disorder, pain, patient education, patient information, shoulder

Biseps tendon bozukluklarına ilişkin çevrimiçi hasta bilgilendirme materyalleri yeterli, kaliteli ve okunabilir durumda mı?

Öz

Amaç: Çalışma, biseps tendon bozuklukları ile ilişkili omuz şikayetleri olan hastalar için oluşturulan web sitelerinin kalite, yeterlilik ve okunabilirliğini incelemeyi amaçlamıştır.

Yöntem: Amerika Birleşik Devletleri'nde en çok kullanılan arama motorlarında (Google, Yahoo ve Bing) 'omuz yaralanması', 'biseps tendiniti' ve 'biseps tendon rüptürü' terimleri arandı. Hastaları bilgilendirmek için tasarlanmış 147 web sitesi çalışmaya dahil edildi. Kalite, popülerlik, yeterlilik ve güvenilirlik ölçüldü.

Bulgular: Sağlık profesyonelleri tarafından içerik oluşturulan web sitelerinin Flesch okuma kolaylığı puanları, oluşturmayanlara göre önemli ölçüde düşüktü; aksine, Flesch-Kincaid sınıf düzeyi (FKGL) ve Koleman-Liau endeksi skorları anlamlı olarak daha yüksekti (p<0.05). Sağlık profesyonelleri tarafından oluşturulan web sitesinde global kalite puanları ve özgünlük puanları daha yüksekti. Ayrıca, sağlık profesyonelleri tarafından içerik oluşturan web sitelerinde, hastalığın önemi, semptomları, tedavisi, belirtileri ve mekanizmasını ele alan referans alıntılı web sitelerinin yüzdesi, olmayanlara göre anlamlı olarak daha yüksekti (p<0.05).Gunning Fog, FKGL, Gobbledygook'un Basit Ölçüsü, Otomatik okunabilirlik endeksi ve doğrusal yazma formülü puanları, HON koduna sahip web sitelerinin HON kodu olmayanlara göre daha düşüktü. Ayrıca özgünlük puanı ve APR puanları, HONcode'lu web sitelerinde HONcode'suz web sitelerine göre daha düşüktü (p<0.05).

Sonuç: Sağlık profesyonelleri tarafından hazırlanan HON kodlu web siteleri biseps tendon bozukluğu olan hastalara yeterli ve kaliteli bilgi sağlayabilir. Biseps tendon bozuklukları için mevcut olan web içeriği, önerilen okuma seviyesinin üzerindedir. Sağlık profesyonelleri içeriğin okunabilirliğini artırmaya teşvik edilmelidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sağlık okuryazarlığı, kas-iskelet sistemi bozukluğu, ağrı, hasta eğitimi, hasta bilgilendirme, omuz

Kaynakça

• 1. Berkman ND, Davis TC, McCormack L. Health literacy: what is it? Journal of health communication. 2010;15(S2):9-19. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2010.499985.
• 2. Sudore RL, Yaffe K, Satterfield S, Harris TB, Mehta KM, Simonsick EM, et al. Limited literacy and mortality in the elderly. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21(8):806-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00539.x.
• 3. Cocco AM, Zordan R, Taylor DM, Weiland TJ, Dilley SJ, Kant J, et al. Dr Google in the ED: searching for online health information by adult emergency department patients. Med J Aust 2018;209(8):342-7. doi: 10.5694/mja17.00889.
• 4. Adams SA. Revisiting the online health information reliability debate in the wake of “web 2.0”: an inter-disciplinary literature and website review. J Med Inform. 2010;79(6):391-400. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.01.006.
• 5. Soobrah R, Clark SK. Your patient information website: how good is it?. Colorectal Dis 2012;14(3):e90-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02792.x.
• 6. Impicciatore P, Pandolfini C, Casella N, Bonati M. Reliability of health information for the public on the World Wide Web: systematic survey of advice on managing fever in children at home. BMJ. 1997;314(7098):1875-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7098.1875.
• 7. Raj S, Sharma VL, Singh AJ, Goel S. Evaluation of quality and readability of health information websites identified through India’s major search engines. Adv Prev Med. 2016;2016:4815285. doi: 10.1155/2016/4815285.
• 8. Alsaiari A, Joury A, Aljuaid M, Wazzan M, Pines JM. The content and quality of health information on the internet for patients and families on adult kidney cancer. J Cancer Educ 2017;32(4):878-84. doi: 10.1007/s13187-016-1039-9.
• 9. Irwin SC, Lennon DT, Stanley CP, Sheridan GA, Walsh JC. Ankle conFUSION: The quality and readability of information on the internet relating to ankle arthrodesis. Surgeon 2021;19(6):e507-11. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2020.12.001.
• 10. Ottenhoff JS, Kortlever JT, Teunis T, Ring D. Factors associated with quality of online information on trapeziometacarpal arthritis. J Hand Surg Am. 2018;43(10):889-96. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.08.004.
• 11. Erian C, Erian M, Raniga S. Impingement on the internet: evaluating the quality and readability of online subacromial impingement information. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2021;7(4):e001203. doi: 10.1136/bmjsem-2021-001203.
• 12. Singh AG, Singh S, Singh PP. YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis—a wakeup call?. J Rheumatol. 2012;39(5):899-903. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.111114.
• 13. Health on the net Foundation. The HON Code of Conduct for medical and health Web sites (HONcode). 1997. https://www.healthonnet.org/HONcode/Conduct.html.
• 14. ALEXA traffic tool. Retrieved December 16, 2020 from https://www.alexa. com/siteinfo [WebCite Cache ID 732VtUJY8]
• 15. Memon M, Ginsberg L, Simunovic N, Ristevski B, Bhandari M, Kleinlugtenbelt YV. Quality of web-based information for the 10 most common fractures. Interact J Med Res. 2016 Jun 17;5(2):e19. doi: 10.2196/ijmr.5767.
• 16. Azer SA, AlOlayan TI, AlGhamdi MA, AlSanea MA. Inflammatory bowel disease: an evaluation of health information on the internet. World J Gastroenterol 2017;23(9):1676-96. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i9.1676.
• 17. CMS. Toolkit for Making Written Material Clear and Effective. 2020; Available from: https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and
• 18. Starman JS, Gettys FK, Capo JA, Fleischli JE, Norton HJ, Karunakar MA. Quality and content of Internet-based information for ten common orthopaedic sports medicine diagnoses. Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Jul 7;92(7):1612-8. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.00821.
• 19. Garcia GH, Taylor SA, Dy CJ, Christ A, Patel RM, Dines JS. Online resources for shoulder instability: what are patients reading?. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Oct 15;96(20):e177. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.01228.
• 20. Dekkers T, Melles M, Groeneveld BS, de Ridder H. Web-based patient education in orthopedics: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(4):e143. doi: 10.2196/jmir.9013.
• 21. Cassidy JT, Baker JF. Orthopaedic patient information on the World Wide Web: an essential review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(4):325-38. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.N.01189.
• 22. Doak CC, Doak LG, Root JH. Teaching patients with low literacy skills [Book review]. AJN 1996;96:12.
• 23. Badarudeen S, Sabharwal S. Assessing readability of patient education materials: current role in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468(10):2572-80. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1380-y.
• 24. Kiapour AM, Otoukesh B, Hosseinzadeh S. The Readability of Online Educational Materials for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2021 Jun 1;29(11):e548-e554. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-20-00834.
• 25. Akinleye SD, Krochak R, Richardson N, Garofolo G, Culbertson MD, Erez O. Readability of the most commonly accessed arthroscopy-related online patient education materials. Arthroscopy. 2018;34(4):1272-9. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.09.043.